The Declaratory Statement: help or hindrance?

The 1901 Declaratory Statement (DS) passes on to the Presbyterian Church of Australia a
mixed heritage which presents the convictions of an evangelical Calvinism yet also introduces
some doctrinal latitude. This chapter considers the question of whether, over all, the DS, is a
help or a hindrance to the life and mission of the PCA. I will not seek to answer the further
question about how the DS has actually functioned in the PCA. That question calls for a
separate historical investigation.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is widely recognized as the most impressive and
influential Confessional Statement of the reformed faith in English. It was written “at the end
of England’s second reformation, and symbolized the high-water mark of Protestant
scholasticism” and set the standard theology for English-speaking Reformed churches, as well
as being used, with revisions, by Congregationalists, Baptists, and Methodists.1

I will not consider here the value to the PCA of having the WCF as its subordinate standard —
I will take that as an assumption for the discussion. The question is how well the DS helps the
Australian church relate to that standard. Does it assist the church in stating its faith in unity,
does it guard the gospel and guide the teachers of the church, how does it connect us to the
wisdom of the past?

Strengthening confessionalism
There are several ways in which the DS strengthens the confessional position of the PCA.

Gospel commitment
The Statement admirably stresses the importance of the gospel. Section 1 opens with a
commitment to the evangelical truths of God’s love for all, the sufficiency of the work of Christ
and the free offer of the gospel “on the grounds of Christ's all sufficient sacrifice”. Each of these
are said to be “vital to the Christian faith”. This displays a healthy confidence that Christian
faith, and the life and mission of the church, all are based in the gospel of Christ.

Webster insists, rightly, that the gospel forms the church. “Gospel and church exist in a strict

1 C. van Dixhoorn, “xxx” The Oxford Handbook of Reformed Theology, eds. S. Swain and M. Allen (Oxford, 2018).

1
and irreversible order one in which the gospel precedes and the church follows”.2 The
Statement reflects such an evangelical view. God uses the gospel — grounded in God’s love,
focused on the work of Christ, and freely proclaimed — to build and sustain his church.

The Statement reflects the evangelical commitment expressed in its source documents. Much
of sections 1-3 is drawn from the 1879 Declaratory Act of the United Presbyterian Church of
Scotland (UPC). The UPC was heir of the Seceder tradition which emphasised the need for
the ministry of the church to proclaim the gospel of Christ’s all-sufficient work (not a legalism
nor mere orthodox doctrine).3

The uniquely Australian material in second part of section 1 is similarly evangelical. The
Presbytery of Melbourne, in reaction to Charles Strong, set forth its expectation of the content
of preaching: the “objective supernatural historic facts” of “the incarnation, the atoning life and
death, and the resurrection and ascension of our Lord, and His bestowment of His Holy Spirit”.
It states that these facts are foundational objectively and subjectively. The faith, as committed
to the Apostles and proclaimed through the generations, rests on the facts of the life and
ministry of Christ and the gift of the Spirit. Christians take hold of the promise of redemption
which is based in the historical work of Christ. The section then states the expectation that
ministers will give a “chief place in their teaching” to not only the “cardinal facts” but also to
“the message of redemption and reconciliation implied and manifested in them”. Proclamation
of the gospel, centred on the historical work of Christ, is at the heart of the ministry of the
church.

Section 2, similarly drawn from the UPC and PCV documents, relates the doctrine of election
to the gospel. It affirms the decretal theology of WCF ch 3, while rejecting any suggestion that
this denies God’s desire to see sinners saved or that salvation is not offered to all. It also affirms
the responsibility of all hearers to respond to the gospel. Section 3, while allowing that God
may work outside gospel mission, affirms that mission is an imperative for the church and that
the preaching of the gospel is the ordinary means for salvation. Even section 4, though more

2 John Webster, "On Evangelical Ecclesiology," Ecclesiology 1/1 (2004): 10, cf his further discussion, 17-19.
3 See W. VanDoodewaard, “Marrow theology and Secession church history” WTJ 71.2 (2009): 399-416; W.
VanDoodewaard, The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition: Atonement, Saving Faith, and The Gospel Offer in Scotland
(1718-1799), Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011; S. Ferguson, The Whole Christ: Legalism,
Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance—Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters (Crossway, 2016); R.S. Ward, Divisions
and unions in Australian Presbyterianism, 1823-1901 : with special reference to the Church's attitude to its creed. ACT thesis
1994, 7.

2
concerned with theological anthropology, includes the note that sinners, retaining the image of
God, have not only have a duty to comply with the moral law, but also to respond to the call
of the gospel. It also notes the need for the work of the Spirit for a proper response to God. So,
the Statement has an impressive commitment to both the content of the gospel and to its
proclamation.

The Statement affirms that the gospel, consisting of the declaration of the “objective
supernatural facts” is central to the life and mission of the church. In this it provides for an
evangelical unity in the PCA — a shared understanding of and commitment to the message of
the gospel.

Confessional content
The DS introduces some confessional latitude (more of that below). However, it affirms much
of the Confession and makes some valuable additions. A declaratory statement is not designed
to give a full theological exposition, and is not intended to replace the WCF. As we will note,
the PCA had the opportunity to adopt a summary doctrinal statement but chose instead to
adopt as DS. Thus, the DS is not alternative confession. The WCF is full the subordinate
standard. For all that, it is remarkable how much of the theology of the Confession the
statement affirms.

As noted above, the DS affirms evangelical truths focussed on Christ. It not only affirms the
historicity of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, it offers a theological understanding of
his work of Christ largely consistent with the Confession. Christ is the “propitiation” for sins —
a terms used in WCF 29:2 — and in this offers the all sufficient sacrifice. The Statement relates
the atonement to Christ’s life as well as his death, affirming Christ’s “atoning life and death”.4
DS 3 affirms that salvation is always through the mediatorial work of Christ. DS 6 recognises
Christ as “the only King and Head of the Church” and “Head over all things”. Each of these
assertions echoes material of Chapter 8 of the Confession.

The DS offers a summary doctrine of God. DS 1 affirms that he is the loving Creator and

4This phrase was introduced into the DS during the federation discussions, replacing the phrase “the Perfect
Obedience and Expiatory Death” in the PCV Statement. So, the DS affirms the WCF doctrine of atonement
more precisely than its Victorian antecedent.

3
DS 2 that he is the sovereign who determines all things by his decree and elects to eternal life.
While there is no explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, the DS is clearly Trinitarian.
Redemption springs from the love of God (the Father) who gave his Son to be mediator and
sacrifice. Salvation is only through the mediation of the Son and by the work of the Spirit who
is the gift of the Son.

DS 4 presents a theological anthropology which holds that humans are made in the image of
God and, despite sin, retain that image, the duties which flow from it, and the ability to do
genuine good. This somewhat qualifies, or perhaps expands, the anthropology of the WCF.
The Confession stresses that humans are “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to
all good, and wholly inclined to all evil” (6:4). It allows that outside of Christ, human works
may be consistent with God’s commands and “of good use”, but they are not rightly motivated
nor done rightly, nor aimed at God’s glory (16.7). The Statement says that outside of Christ
humans are capable of “affections and actions which of themselves are virtuous and
praiseworthy”. These positions are not strictly antithetical but represent a different emphases.
The DS also reflects the Confessional doctrine of sin: outside of Christ people are “sunk in
ignorance, sin and misery” (DS 3), humanity is fallen and unable to turn to God without the
work of the Holy Spirit (DS 4).

Consistent with this view of humanity, the DS affirms the sovereign work of the Spirit in
regeneration. Salvation depends on the grace of the Holy Spirit whose work is described in
terms taken from WCF 10:3 — he “worketh when and where and how it pleaseth Him”. The
statement also touches on the nature of the response to the gospel which the Spirit enables, as
it speaks of “Christian consciousness” which “takes hold of” the facts of the gospel (DS1) and
the need for repentance (DS2).

The DS also provides a doctrine of the church. As noted above, the Church is formed by and
proclaims the Word. The DS itself reflects the teaching authority of the Church, as it sets out
what it expects of its teachers and affirms the Church must guard against the abuse of liberty
of opinion (DS 5).5 The final section of the DS follows the WCF in asserting that Christ is the
head of the church, not the magistrate, and this is the basis of the political theology of the DS.

5 For a detailed discussion of the authority of the church and the important distinction between the separate and
joint exercise of that authority see T. David Gordon “The Church’s Power: Its Relation to Subscription”, XXX

4
Without pretending that the DS is a comprehensive doctrinal statement, we can conclude that
it makes clear several of the key truths of the faith and directs attention to important teaching
in the WCF.

Political theology
The WCF sets out a two-kingdoms political theology in which the church and the state are both
instituted by Christ and have distinct but closely related tasks and jurisdictions.6 The state has
the authority and duty to establish a reformed church in the nation; and this allows no room
for other Christian churches, let alone any other religions.

This view is rejected in DS 7. When it disclaims “intolerant or persecuting principles” and

affirms “the liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment” it abandons the
establishment principle of the Confession.7 With those words, the PCA freed itself from a
political theology which was never practical in Australia, and is now largely irrelevant. The the
assumption that there exist “Christian nations” in covenant with God in which the magistrate
should enforce Reformed Christianity is a significant theological error. The PCA does
continues to insist on the distinction between church and state and that enforced religion does
not encourage true faith and promote a general religious liberty as the best for Australia.8

Honest subscription
The WCF is, in one sense, too impressive. By treating so many details of theology with such
precision, it makes it inevitable that many who own the Reformed faith will find some aspects

The Practice of Confessional Subscription, in The Practice of Confessional Subscription D. Hall, ed. (Powder Springs:
Covenant Foundation, 2018, 3rd ed).
6 See D. van Drunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2009), 149-211; C. van Dixhoorn, “Politics and religion in the Westminster
assembly and the ‘grand debate’,” in Alternative establishments in early modern Britain and Ireland: Catholic and Protestant,
R. Armstrong and T. O’hAnnrachain, eds, (Manchester, 2013), 131-38.
7 The wording is from the FCS Act, framed by an Assembly which had largely accepted Voluntaryism, though

in fact similar wording is found in the FCS 1846 declaration declared, "...the Church firmly maintains the same
Scriptural principles as to the duties of nations and their rulers in reference to true religion and the Church of
Christ, for which she has hitherto contended, she disclaims intolerant or persecuting principles, and does not
regard her Confession of Faith, or any portion thereof, when fairly interpreted, as favouring intolerance or
persecution, or consider that her office bearers, by subscribing it, profess any principles inconsistent with liberty
of conscience and the right of private judgment." The Heritage of Our Fathers, G.N.M. Collins (Edinburgh: the
Knox Press, 1974), 89.
8 See my discussions J. McClean “Neo-Calvinism versus Two-Kingdoms: an eschatological assessment” RTR

76/3 (Dec. 2017): 172-95 and J. McClean “Religious freedom as a problem for Reformed Theology: Calvin,
Rutherford and Owen” Revista Teológica 71. 1 (April 2018): 137-57.

5
to which they cannot subscribe. This generates a long-standing challenge for confessional
churches to clarify their understanding of subscription. Charles Hodge, arguing in 1858 for
“system subscription”, made the point that it is unworkable and even “evil” to expect that
ministers and elders subscribe to every detail of the Confession.9
“To adopt every proposition contained in the Westminster Confession and
Catechisms is more than the vast majority of our ministers either do or can
do. To make them profess to do it is a great sin. It hurts their consciences. It
fosters a spirit of evasion and subterfuge.”10
Every confessional church faces the challenge of how to deal with the fact that there will be
officers, or potential officers, who cannot subscribe to all of the Confession.11

The DS allows office bearers of the PCA to subscribe to the doctrinal basis with honesty. This
was the intention of the UPC Act as explained by its leading architect and proponent John
Cairns.12 He stated that the aim was to ‘explain’ the Standards and to ‘free them from difficulty’
so as to grant some liberty “here and there”, a liberty which had been previously been granted
in practice though not encoded. Cooper concludes that the PCA statement achieves the same
end — “ministers were committed to the Calvinistic system of doctrine as found in the
Westminster Confession but liberty was allowed on matters that did not affect the essentials of
that system”.13

At least on paper, the Declaratory Statement is a means by which office bearers may hold to
the “essentials” of the doctrine in the Confession with a clear evangelical emphasis and some
liberty on non-essential issues. It thus can help the PCA to maintain unity on primary doctrinal
issues, without imposing uniformity in secondary ones. It can help the church hold to the
confession in a way that first things remain first. Of course, in practice, it has been understood
to allow vast freedom, and we will turn to that below.

9 C. Hodge, The Church and its Polity (London: Thomas Nelson, 1879), 314-42.
10 Hodge, 332. See David B. Calhoun, “Honest Subscription”: Old Princeton Seminary and Subscription to the
Westminster Standards”, 290-300 in The Practice of Confessional Subscription D. Hall, ed. (Powder Springs:
Covenant Foundation, 2018, 3rd ed) and J.V. Fesko, "THE LEGACY OF OLD SCHOOL CONFESSION
SUBSCRIPTION IN THE OPC." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46. 4 (12, 2003): 673-98
11 See R. S. Ward, “Subscription to the Confession”, 77-138, in The Westminster Confession into the 21st century, J.

Ligon Duncan, ed, Volume 3 (Fearn : Mentor, 2003). For some recent discussions of the issues in American
churches see http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2018/01/considering-exceptions.php and
http://katekomen.gpts.edu/2010/11/church-without-confession-some.html .
12 See Hamilton, 158-62 on the makeup of the committee and N.R. Needham, “Cairns, John”, 117-18 in

Dictionary of Scottish church history & theology, N. M. d. S. Cameron, ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993).
13 Cooper, 238.

6
Modifying the Confessional Basis
The DS also makes some modifications to the Confessional basis of the PCA, in relation to the
WCF, and offers some latitude in how the Confession is held.

No doctrine of Scripture
One of the apparent gaps is that the DS has no doctrine of Scripture. It has no direct reference
to Scripture, and alludes only to two passages (1 Jn 2:2 and 2 Peter 3:9). When Section 1 lists
the “objective supernatural facts” it does not state that these are found in Scripture. It is worth
noting that the 1884 Federation Conference agreed to a version of the Declaratory Statement
and attached an explanatory note that listed the “leading positions of the ‘system of doctrine’
contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith” including “the Inspiration and Divine
Authority of Scripture”. Neither this version of the statement and its accompanying note were
finally adopted.

Disputes about the doctrine of Scripture rocked the Church of Scotland in the second half of
the nineteenth century and were part of the scene in Australia. It may be that the depth of such
disputes was precisely the reasons why Scripture was not included in the statement. Perhaps
there was no prospect of the colonial churches reaching sufficient agreement to restate the
doctrine.

The PCA affirms the authority of Scripture. The Section 1. of the Basis of Union states that
“The Supreme Standard of the united church shall be the Word of God contained in the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” This wording, proposed by the NSW Assembly
in 1895, was adopted by Federal Assembly that year.14 Nevertheless, in light of the various
positions on the doctrine of Scripture present in the late 19th century, this statement hardly pins
down the position of the PCA with precision.

Shift in theological position

14"Record of the New South Wales Committee of intercourse with Other Churches 1895", in the Minutes of the
Proceedings of the Commission of Assembly of Presbyterian Church of New South Wales July 1895, in Cooper,
219.

7
While the Statement affirms much of the content of the WCF, it offers a different theological
position to that of the Confession in its treatment of the atonement. Chapter VIII of the
confession presents the person and work of Christ carefully related to the eternal purposes of
God to save a people for himself. It states that God chose the Son to be the Mediator and gave
him from eternity “a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified,
sanctified, and glorified” (WCF 8.1). WCF 8.4-7 show how Christ perfectly fulfils his office, so
that “by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself” he “fully satisfied the justice of the
Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom
of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given him”. On the basis of God’s eternal
purpose, and the appointment of the Son to the office of Meditator and his perfect fulfillment
of that office, the confession can then declare that “to all those for whom Christ hath purchased
redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same”.15 This
statement leads into the exposition of the application of redemption, and shows why the
Confession is confident that God’s call is effectual and his work of sanctification with be
completed so that believers may have a well-grounded assurance. 16

Chapter VIII shows the strength of this view. The emphasis is not on the “limitation” of the
atonement, indeed the Confession never describes the work of Christ in those terms. Rather, it
stresses the purpose and perfection of the work of Christ. Redemption is established on the
basis of God’s eternal plans resolved between the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit). The
Son perfectly executes his task so that redemption is secured for all who are his (John 10:11,
14-15). The application of redemption is grounded in the completed work of Christ. The Spirit
is sent by the Son to share all that the Son has with those who are his (John 16:15).

The DS, in contrast, stresses the universal extent of the atonement with three statements
affirming “i) the love of God to all mankind”; ii) Jesus death as “the propitiation for the sins of
the whole world”; and iii) “the free offer of salvation to men without distinction on the grounds
of Christ's all sufficient sacrifice”. Most Christians who hold to particular redemption accept

15 J. Nederhood, “The Preminence of Christ”, 211-232 in J. Carson and D. Hall (eds), To Glorify and Enjoy God
(Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994).
16 See the comments on 8.8 in C. Van Dixhoorn. Confessing The Faith (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, ) (Kindle loc.

2427-2441). For criticisms of definite redemption see the review in D. Gibson, & J. Gibson, “Sacred Theology
and the Reading of the Divine Word Mapping the Doctrine of Definite Atonement”, in From Heaven He Came and
Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective David Gibson & Jonathan
Gibson, eds (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 34-36; and see D.B. Knox, “Some aspects of the atonement” in T.
Payne (ed.), Selected Works, Volume 1: The Doctrine of God (Kingsford: Matthias Media, 2000), 260-66; David L.
Allen, The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review. (B&H Publishing Group, 2016).

8
such statements. A doctrine of definite redemption can (and should) affirm God’s love for all
humanity, but will not tie this directly to intention of the atoning work of Christ.17 1 Jn 2:2
states that the death of Christ is “the propitiation for the sins of the whole world” and this is
used in the proof texts of the WCF 18:3.18 The free offer or well-meant offer of the gospel is
consistent with classic Westminster theology.19

Thus, the mere inclusion of these universal statements does not mean that the Statement has a
different theological position, though it may raise some questions. It has been argued that the
Westminster Confession is framed so as to not exclude some versions of hypothetical
universalism.20 Even if this is the case, it is quite another position to insist that the universal
statements are “vital to the Christian faith”. The tension with the Confession arises with the
assertion that the three truths are “vital to the Christian faith”. This claim is it at striking, in
light of the fact that the WCF does not make any universal statements about the atonement. It
is very difficult to see how a claim for the necessity of universalistic claims (since they are vital to
the faith) can be in harmony with the doctrine of the Confession.

The shift in theological position is apparent when we understand these statements in their 19th
century context. The opening sentence of DS 1 is almost entirely modelled on the opening
section of the 1879 Declaratory Act of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
(Interestingly, the Presbyterian Church of Victoria did not include material from this section of
the UPC Act in its 1882 Act.) The Australian version replaces the phrase “perfect sacrifice”
with “all sufficient sacrifice” (making the universal atonement more explicit).21

17 See comments in Gibson & Gibson, 40-41 and G. Vos, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Love of God,” in
Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B.
Gaffin (Phillipsburg, NJ: P& R, 1980), 425– 57.
18 The Westminster Annotations explains the text as denying any limitation of the effect of Christ’s death to

those who already believe or are already alive or to Jews and affirming that it is for all believers of all nations.
See M.S. Harmon, “For the Glory of the Father and the Salvation of His People Definite Atonement in the
Synoptics and Johannine Literature”, in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical,
Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, J. & D. Gison (Crossway. Kindle Edition), 284-85.
19 See A.A. Hoekema, Saved By Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989); Erroll Hulse, The Free Offer: An Exposition

of Common Grace and the Free Invitation of the Gospel (Sussex: Carey Publications, 1973); Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v.
Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995); Cornelis P. Venema,
“The Doctrine of Preaching According to the Reformed Confessions,” in Mid-America Journal of Theology, 10
(1999): 135-183.
20 L. Gatiss, “A deceptive clarity?: Particular redemption in the Westminster standards" RTR 69/ 3 (December

2010): 180-196.
21 The DS also varies the final statement that the three claims “are matters which have been and continue to be

regarded by this Church as vital in the system of gospel truth, and to which due prominence ought ever to be
given”. The Australian version does not assert that the church has held this view, perhaps acknowledging that
the PCA was made of up streams of Scottish Presbyterianism which in the past held a more confessional view of
the atonement. It also does not repeat the final asserting that the truths should be given “due prominence”,

9
The free offer of the gospel was an emphasis in the Seceder churches which formed the UPC
ever since their origin in the Marrow controversy in the 18th century.22 In the early period, the
free offer was held alongside a continuing commitment to the doctrine of election and definite
atonement. In the 19th century, the UPC theologians often lacked the clear commitment to the
Westminster understanding of the atonement. VanDoodewaard explains theological
developments.
Without the carefully articulated understanding of the covenant theology
expressed by early Marrow theologians such as Thomas Boston and Ebenezer
Erskine in adherence to confessional orthodoxy, the emphasis on a free, full,
universal gospel offer lost its theological context. The bold language of
Marrow theology, “the deed of gift and grant” of Christ and the proclamation
that “Christ is dead for you” as He is offered in the gospel, could now be more
comfortably retro-fitted to an Amyraldian or universalist, rather than a
particular, view of the extent of the atonement.23

So the PCA inherits a document which reflects the changing views of the atonement in
Presbyterian theology. As far as I am aware, the Church has never held that the Statement
excludes those who hold to a classic Westminster position on the atonement, yet the wording of
the DS comes close to this. At least we have to conclude that it weakens the carefully
constructed atonement theology of the Confession. Whether this seen as a benefit to the PCA
or is thought to diminish the clarity of the church’s understanding of the atonement will depend
on one’s view of the theology itself.

More generally, the DS allows considerable diversity of opinion on a range of theological issues.
As written, it does not open the door to unlimited variation since it requires commitment to
significant areas of doctrinal teaching, as reviewed above. Liberty of opinion is granted only in
areas which are not essential to the doctrine of the Confession. Yet there is no attempt to delimit
what is essential in the Confession. The decision is left entirely to the church, through its courts.
This means that the breadth of liberty is very much dependent on the courts Church.

perhaps because it uses similar phrasing in the second part of the section, where it follows the PCV Declaratory
Act in calling ministers to give a “chief place in their teaching” to the “objective supernatural historic facts”.
22 Joseph H. Hall, “The Marrow Controversy: A Defense of Grace and the Free Offer of the Gospel,” in Mid-

America Journal of Theology, 10 (1999): 239-257

23 VanDoodewaard, loc. 63643. cf Statham, 64-65.

10
The DS was, at least in the mind of some, a step toward increased doctrinal latitude in the
Church. In 1889, B.B. Warfield reviewed the introduction of Declaratory Acts and moves to
confessional revision in Presbyterian church around the world, including the Presbyterian
Church of Victoria, and concluded that they were evidence of “a deep and almost universal
disaffection under the pressure of the Westminster Standards”.24

We have limited evidence of the intention of the framers of the Statement in the years leading
up to federation. What there is suggests that the promoters considered it a significant shift away
from the Confessional theology. L Laurence Rentoul, whose overture established the final
version of the DS, described himself as having the “liberal'” faith of an “evangelical broad
churchman”.25 He had been a minister of the Presbyterian Church of England which in 1890
had adopted the “Articles of the Faith” which were simpler than the Confession, but retained
much of its distinctive emphasis, though with a far looser doctrine of Scripture.26 Rentoul
favoured such a statement, but finally supported the adoption of the DS.27

The second Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia in 1902 considered just such a
short statement of doctrine, prepared as a basis for discussion about union with other Protestant
churches. In this context, Rev John Meiklejohn, who had been Moderator-General of the first
Assembly, explained that the Declaratory Statement “helps both to interpret and to modify”
the Confession and that the short statement contained “all that is essential in it, and nothing
that is not essential”. He observed that the situation was not “so much a change of view with
regard to the truth or falsity of particular doctrines as to the comparative value of the doctrines
held” and that “the doctrines of election and the eternal suffering of the lost … loomed largely
in the vision of the Presbyterians of a past age” but no longer had the same significance.
“Revealed truth which was formerly viewed from the standpoint of the Divine Sovereignty is
now viewed from that of Divine love”.

24 Warfield, “On the Revision of the Confession of Faith” The Presbyterian Review, October, 1889, vol. X

25 Stuart Macintyre, 'Rentoul, John Laurence (1846–1926)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National
Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/rentoul-john-laurence-
8184/text14311
26 See D. Fraser, Sound doctrine : a commentary on the articles of the faith of the Presbyterian church of England (London :

Presbyterian Church of England, 1892) for a commentary on the articles by one of the original composers. He
comments that the statement on biblical inspiration does not mean that all Scripture “had the same measure of
inspiration” and does not exclude “the possibility of any inaccuracy being found therein through the fault of the
human author” (182-83).
27 Swanton, 18.

11
All of this suggests that the DS was composed with the intent of establishing a theological
position which differed from that of the Confession — though the extent of the difference is not
clearly determined.

Holding our confession

This chapter has highlighted the complex heritage which the PCA receives from its DS. In
conclusion, I offer some suggestions about how we can make the most of our doctrinal basis,
and guard against some of the risks it brings.

The DS has an important stress on the importance of the gospel. The PCA should continue to
reflect on the gospel commitments in the DS, both about the content of the gospel and the
place of the gospel in the mission of the church. We must continue a full declaration of the
“objective supernatural historic facts”, seeking to understand the person and work of Christ
and Spirit and the wonder of God’s work of redemption. We must commit to proclaiming this
gospel, in its biblical depth, to a world which desperately needs it. We will express the mission
imperative in different terms, but we should join with framers of the DS and affirm that “the
duty of sending the Gospel to the heathen who are sunk in ignorance, sin and misery is
imperative”.

The DS offers a political theology which is far more suitable for pluralistic Australia, and is, I
believe, a better reflection of a Christian view of the relation of church and state than the
political theology of the Confession. The Presbyterian Church of Australia should continue its
historic commitment to freedom of religion, and recognise that “the liberty of conscience and
the right of private judgment” is not limited to Christian believers.

The DS allows freedom for officers of the church who hold a range of views to subscribe to the
Confession in good conscience. It clearly affirms a range of important doctrines which all
officers of the Presbyterian Church of Australia are required to subscribe in the doctrine of
God, the person and work of Christ, anthropology, salvation and the ecclesiology. It also allows
for significantly greater theological diversity than does the Confession. This allowance can be
healthy if it is managed well, but certainly brings risks to the church.

12
The PCA is constitutionally committed to the Westminster Confession as its subordinate
standard. It is important that the church continues to act on this constitutional commitment. It
must ensure that office bearers are familiar with, value and use the Confession. It must continue
to teach its people the confessional truths, and introduce them to the Confession itself. The
revival of Reformed theology in the last two decades has prompted a greater interest in the
Westminster Assembly and its documents.28 This seems to be reflected in increased engagement
with the Confession in the PCA, though that is difficult to document. The church is well served
by having a reasonable level of doctrinal coherence, albeit with scope for diversity.

The DS recognises the church has to guard against the abuse of liberty of opinion, so the onus
is on the courts of the church to give attention to the theological position of the church. First,
it is important for the General Assembly of Australia, which is supreme in matters of doctrine,
to make declarations about the position of the PCA. This may be not a requirement in a church
which has clearer confessional position, but it seems to be an important way in the PCA can
maintain clarity of doctrine. This has not been a common practice in the past, apart from
statements on moral issues. The 2013 GAA made a declaration on the view of baptism required
of office bearers, similar statements will be helpful from time to time.

Second, Sessions and Presbyteries should consider the theological position of candidates for
office (elders as well as ministers). It is important that the relevant court is confident that a
candidate is familiar with the Confession, can explain and defend its theology and is able to
articulate and defend areas in which they disagrees with the Confession, read in the light of the
DS. It is tempting to make theological examinations perfunctory, but the church will be far
better served by Sessions and Presbyteries taking their responsibility more seriously.

28 On the revival of reformed theology see C. Hansen, Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New
Calvinists (Crossway, 2008); J.R. Walker, The new Calvinism considered: a personal and pastoral assessment (Darlington,
UK: Evangelical Press, 2013) and C. Bale, “Calvinism in Australia 1788–2009: a historical assessment” 274-97
in Engaging with Calvin: Aspects of the Reformer’s legacy for today, M. Thompson, ed. (IVP, 2009). The
renewal of interest in Westminster is reflected in the publication of Ligon Duncan III, ed., The Westminster
Confession into the 21st century 3 volumes, (Fearn: Mentor; 2003, 2004, 2009); Robert Letham, The Westminster
Assembly : reading its theology in historical context (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2009); C. van Dixhoorn, The Minutes and Papers of
the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1653, 5 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); C. van Dixhoorn, Confessing
the faith: a reader's guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth 2014) and J. Fesko, The
Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014).

13
The PCA has a somewhat ambiguous theological heritage, holding to the WCF but reading
this in the light of the moderate evangelical Calvinism of 19th century Scotland and allowing
for liberty of opinion.

John McClean, 2019.

14